How can the moon do that?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 02:15 AM by warthog911

Here is an example of rust proof IRON
en.wikipedia.org...

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 08:20 AM by cmdrkeenkid

Umm... That's made of sandstone. Try reading your links next time.

Though, oddly enough, the link you provided also contained a link to the Qutb Complex Iron Pillar, which has withstood corrosion for the better part of the last 1600 years. Why though? Because of two reasons... It's coated with a compound called "misawite" and because the Sun heats the pillar enough to keep water from saturating on it.

Source

Metallurgists at Kanpur IIT claim that a thin layer of "misawite", a compound of iron, oxygen, and hydrogen, has protected the cast iron pillar from rust. The protective film took form within three years after erection of the pillar and has been growing ever so slowly since then. After 1,600 years, the film has grown just one-twentieth of a millimetre thick, according to R. Balasubramaniam of the IIT.

In a report published in the journal Current Science, Balasubramaniam says the protective film was formed catalytically by the presence of high amounts of phosphorus in the iron — this phosphorus is as much as one per cent against less than 0.05 per cent in today's iron. The high phosphorus content is a result of the iron-making process practiced by ancient Indians, who reduced iron ore into steel in one step by mixing it with charcoal.

Another theory suggests that the reason that the pillar resists rust is due to its thickness, which allows the sun to heat the pillar sufficiently during the day to evaporate all rain or dew from its surface. The accumulated heat also keeps the surface dry at night.

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 09:51 PM by cmdrkeenkid

So I think I scared you off, warthog911, but I thought that this was kind of funny, and worth saying...

Originally posted by warthog911
13. Weird Orbit: ...The moon’s center of mass is about 6000 feet closer to the Earth than its geometric center (which should cause wobbling), but the moon’s bulge is on the far side of the moon, away from the Earth.

Moon's Strange Bulge Finally Explained

An eccentric orbit in the Moon's distant past might be responsible for the mysterious bulge around its middle, scientists say.

The excess material around the lunar equator has been known since 1799 when French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace first noticed it. The reason, however, has been a mystery until now.

The Moon's peculiar shape can be explained if the satellite moved in an eccentric oval-shaped orbit 100 million years after its violent formation, when the satellite hadn't yet solidified, the researchers say.

It was like a big ball of molasses and all around the equator it got deformed, study team member Ian Garrick-Bethell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology told SPACE.com.

Around that time, conditions, such as orbit shape and position, were optimal for this "ball of molasses" to cool down and become the solid moon that we now know.

Today, the Moon's orbit around the Earth is nearly circular.

To predict the Moon's position and orbit millions of years ago, Garrick-Bethel and colleagues extrapolated backwards from ancient records of the timing of historical solar eclipses and of changes in the distance between the Earth and Moon.

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 10:02 PM by Rren

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Moon's Strange Bulge Finally Explained

The Moon's peculiar shape can be explained if the satellite moved in an eccentric oval-shaped orbit 100 million years after its violent formation, when the satellite hadn't yet solidified, the researchers say.

It was like a big ball of molasses and all around the equator it got deformed, study team member Ian Garrick-Bethell of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology told SPACE.com.

Around that time, conditions, such as orbit shape and position, were optimal for this "ball of molasses" to cool down and become the solid moon that we now know.

cmdrkeenkid,

Couldn't that also be the same type of mechanism that created the big ridge on Iapetus? Plenty of tidal forces and possibilities for collisions etc. For all I know they've explained it already but IIRC nobody's really sure why Iapetus looks like it does/how it formed. Is that correct?

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 10:06 PM by cmdrkeenkid

Among all the hypotheses for why Iapetus is the way it is, that is the gist of the best one... The other two scientific ones are that: A.) Icy material had welled up underneath the crust, pushing it up; 2.) The ridge was caused by a close brush with Saturn's ring system.

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 10:21 PM by Rren

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Among all the hypotheses for why Iapetus is the way it is, that is the gist of the best one... The other two scientific ones are that: A.) Icy material had welled up underneath the crust, pushing it up; 2.) The ridge was caused by a close brush with Saturn's ring system.

Well it's no 'death star hypothesis' but it works for me.

I thought I remembered Hoagland's "theory" being brought up a few pages ago and your link reminded me I didn't know what the official/concensus opinion was on the ridge. That's your area and [sorta] on topic so I asked

It's definately odd... which, of course, equals: Obviously a space station, you can't fool me.

reply posted on 3-8-2006 @ 10:25 PM by cmdrkeenkid

The entire moon is made of rust proof iron, by the way.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 12:07 AM by warthog911

Speaking of ipetus

en.wikipedia.org...
www.enterprisemission.com...

cmdrkeenkid debunk this!.I believe that iapetus and our moon are spaceships.YOu can debunk this as much as you want.I know that ats is full of govt paid debunkers,i have yet to see who you are?.A skeptic a believer or a govt debunker.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 07:34 AM by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by warthog911
cmdrkeenkid debunk this!

You already posted it once and I ignored it before. So did Nygdan. This time I'll say something...

I ingored it last time because:
A.) It's irrelevant to the thread (The question about the ridge was, since it was in context to the bulge on the Moon)

I'm not going to delve into it this time because:
A.) The same reason as last time - If you want to start another thread on Iapetus, go ahead.
2.) I'm tired of dealing with your desire to wallow in your own ignorance. Obviously you won't be convinced by logic and reasoning, so please do enjoy your own little fantastical universe, because once you grow up, to lead a normal life, you'll have to give it up and enter the real world with the rest of us.

[edit on 8/4/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 08:03 AM by Darkmind

Originally posted by warthog911
I believe that iapetus and our moon are spaceships.YOu can debunk this as much as you want.I know that ats is full of govt paid debunkers,i have yet to see who you are?.A skeptic a believer or a govt debunker.

Do you have any evidence at all of this? Bloody silly thing to create, the damn thing's been pummelled for billions of years by debris.

Seriously, what's your proof that the moon is artificial?
And do you really think that this site is full of government paid debunkers? What does that therefore make a sceptic like me?

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 09:39 AM by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Darkmind
Seriously, what's your proof that the moon is artificial?

Good luck getting that answered... I've asked repeatedly, but he or she cannot/refusing to provide any tangible evidence.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 11:04 AM by backtoreality

I now officially delclare this thread as a high school research project. Congratulations to (almost) everyone involved for posting links to random topics about the moon. We couldn't have done it without you. To the "discussion movers", where would we be without your two sentence posts about inches per year of the moon's recession. Oh, who am I forgetting here? Oh! Oh! And to my darling realte-everything-to-alien friends, who cease all use of logic and reasoning to state that the moon is a spaceship.

Thank you again, all!

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 02:28 PM by Purgatory

COLUMBUS, OH, United States (UPI) -- U.S. astronomers say that intergalactic trip to Triangulum will take a bit longer than you planned -- since the galaxy is farther from Earth than thought.
Ohio State University astronomer Kris Stanek and colleagues have determined the Triangulum Galaxy, otherwise known as M33, is actually about 15 percent farther from our galaxy than previously measured.
Stanek says the finding implies the Hubble constant -- a number that astronomers rely on to calculate a host of factors, including the size and age of the universe -- could be significantly off the mark as well.
That means the universe might be 15 percent bigger and 15 percent older than any previous calculations suggested.

link

There is a perfect example (article above) that science is not always correct in their assumptions. Something so vast as space, planet & moon exploration and travel, existence of Alien life forms, creation of the earth & moon & universe, creation of Humankind, The universe & other dimensions, the afterlife, and on and on and on are things they can only create theories about and nothing more- they can speculate as best they can with what scientific methods they have available at that given time, but that's about it. 30 years later, with higher technology, maybe such theories will be proven wrong, (at least for the time being). Hell, we're still discovering things at the bottom of the oceans on our own planet we never knew existed, let alone other planets...
Humans "think" they know all of the answers to everything, when in reality, their comprehension of all things greater than us is just a guess.

That's my .02 on it.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 03:05 PM by XS207

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
At the very least, the moon should be flying away from us at 100 kilometres an hour, but it isn't. How can it slot into that exact place at the exact right speed and all that?

But the moon is drifting away at us at a rate of about 2 cm per day. Over the course of around 4 billion years, it has drifted out to its current position. Eventually the moon will be lost and Earth's climate will dramatically change. But I think the sun will engulf Earth before that happens.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 03:27 PM by laiguana

I may have missed this somewhere, but I'm kinda new to this subject.... I'm curious what the theory is for Iapetus' distinctive ridge along it's equator? I found that to be an interesting feature.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 03:57 PM by Whiskey Jack

Originally posted by Purgatory
Humans "think" they know all of the answers to everything, when in reality, their comprehension of all things greater than us is just a guess.

Ok, sure, but keep in mind that these "guesses" you so blithely discard are ones that have, on our limited scale borne out many times for many different people, so they're pretty decent guesses based on the evidence we have.

To digress a bit from the moon part of this discussion, let me tell you the story of a friend, her car, and her refutation of "guesses." History has shown us, time and time again, that when one solid object attempts to pass through the physical space occupied by another physical object it does not do so without passing along its kinetic energy. Sometimes this destroys one or both of the intersecting objects, but most of the time it simply damages one or the other, and arrests (or deflects) the trajectory of both objects. Simple enough, right?
Well, not for my friend. She's a dear, sweet person, but I will never, ever, get in a car with her. She is firmly convinced (because "it feels like it should be true") that if she only believes hard enough she can cause her car to pass through the space occupied by something else --a tree, a sign, another car, a house-- without interacting with that object. In spite of, to use the most conservative estimates, 6000 years evidence to the contrary, she believes that she can succeed at making one solid object pass through the physical space occupied by another physical object.
Now, it might be that she's right. There may be a way to do this, and it may be something that we'll discover in the next 30 years, but I don't want to be there when she makes the experiment while driving.

Similarly, it is certainly possible that the moon is a spaceship, that George Lucas channeled ancestral DNA memory when designing the Death Star so that it looks like Spaceship Iaeptus™, that we're all government-employed debunkers designed to keep the masses in happy tranquility, or that the Crab Nebula really would taste good if only you could find enough marinara sauce and a pot of boiling water a few million lightyears in diameter....but it's probably not.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 04:11 PM by Iggnorace_is_bliss

According to all scientific literature, perpetual motion is impossible. The fact of the matter is the internal combustion engine is only 30% efficient. Currently the government will not fund anybody working on device that claims to achieve up to 99.9% efficiency. The reason they give, is that this is impossible. Using the numbers that we have available to us about the moons mass, distance and speed we could determine the rate of decline in its orbit. Science is the study of nature and if what we know about the moon is true we should be able to build a scale model of a vacuum, in a lab somewhere on earth to and face Yet if everything know about physics is to be believed, this is a very relevant question to ask.

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 04:49 PM by Neon Haze

Even I would say that it does seem rather a large coincidence that not only is the moon currently the right distance to create an eclipse but that the moon is turning at exactly the correct speed to be always facing the same direction to an earth bound observer.

IT is the second of my points that I would like to draw attention to. You see that to me is the most interesting fact about the moon.

If the moon were made of lighter matter, then its orbit would be more distant and so a total eclipse could not have occurred at any point in our history, but what causes the moon to spin so perfectly in sync with its orbital trajectory?

This I can only put down to the fact that we are the lucky few that are able to witness this at this time.

As the moon moves away from us (albeit at a very slow rate) the distance the moon will travel will be greater to achieve a single orbit of the earth. This means that if the speed of the moons rotation stays the same then as it moves further away from us we will see it begin to spin.

The moon's spin won't actually be increasing in speed; it’s just that the difference in the speed relative to the moons orbit will be larger.

I hope that makes sense.

There is actually an equation that predicts the exact moment the moon will start to spin to an earth observer. I will look it up and post it.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by Neon Haze]

reply posted on 4-8-2006 @ 11:13 PM by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Purgatory
There is a perfect example (article above) that science is not always correct in their assumptions.

Okay, and you just confimed why there are so few scientific laws (in comparison to how many theories there are). The difference is that all of the scientific theories have other theories and laws backing them up while the theories of the Moon being a spaceship have things such as "predictions" or ramblings of someone who spoke with aliens. Which would be more credible (provided you live in the real world, which has been well established not all of us do)?

Not to mention true science works to disprove itself. That may not make sense, but if you're going to come out and make a claim, you damn well make sure that it's solid. If it's not, people will say so in very short order. As well as that, you state how you came to your conclusions. Now, what do these "The Moon is a spaceship" people do? They say, "This is the way it is and there's nothing to disprove it," and they did nothing to state how they came to that conclusion.

For example, what did they do to test their theories? If nothing, which is most likely the case, they're nothing more than elaborate hypotheses. If they did test them, how, when, where, with whom, etc, etc, etc...? Aside from that, if the hypotheses were truely 100% sound where nothing could disprove them, they would become scientific laws. For example, you're taugh Kepler's Laws in astronomy classes because they were proven, while you're only taught of the Theory of Relativity because there really is nothing we can do at this time in history to disprove it.

Originally posted by laiguana
I may have missed this somewhere...

You did.

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Even I would say that it does seem rather a large coincidence that not only is the moon currently the right distance to create an eclipse but that the moon is turning at exactly the correct speed to be always facing the same direction to an earth bound observer.

Technically, all an object has to do to cause an eclipse is to pass in front of the Sun. When it comes down to it, eclipses and transits are the same thing... As for the tidal lock? I fail to see why people find that odd, since it really isn't all that uncommon.

reply posted on 5-8-2006 @ 06:22 AM by warthog911

cmdrkeenkid you are able to explain everything but can you explain me this.

The jap mala(hindu dharma)
has 108 beads
Sun and Earth: The diameter of the Sun is 108 times the diameter of the Earth. The distance from the Sun to the Earth is 108 times the diameter of the Sun.

Moon and Earth: The average distance of the Moon from the Earth is 108 times the diameter of the Moon.

Silver and the moon: In astrology, the metal silver is said to represent the moon. The atomic weight of silver is 108

coincidence or you know what

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^